My dear Chinese-Pakistani Hybrid PLA, yet again you prove your inability to grasp a clear and crisp point. No one is doubting that something called the H4 does exist. What people do doubt is whether that something is a BVR AAM. If you know that it’s a BVR AAM, then give me proof. Simple and reasonable request.

Is that point not clear enough for my hybrid friend?

X X X REMOVED BY MOD X X X

Again the same method of “proving” a capability exists by stating that the nation “is not open with its information.” Thereby, how dare anyone express cynicism that the nation doesn’t have that capability if the nation is so closed.

But people seem to fail to notice the inherent contradiction in dismissing the cynicism with trying to maintain that the capability exists. If someone is not capable of proving the capability exists, then how can others prove that the capability exists? There’s no proof either way.

No one can prove that the PAF doesn’t operate the AIM-7 but no can prove that the PAF does operate the AIM-7. So are we just accept that the PAF does operate the AIM-7 just because no one can prove that it doesn’t? Same thing with the H4. Just because no one can prove that the H4 isn’t a BVR AAM, does that mean that it is a BVR AAM?

According to PLA’s “logic,” aliens do exist because no one can prove that they don’t. And of course AREA51 is so closed off about sharing information, we can assume that they do keep an alien there. Oh, well, I guess SETI can wrap up and all my computer’s “hard work” in processing SETI info has been to naught 😀 Thanks PLA for opening my eyes.

Experience building has to start somewhere…

As the comparison shows, the LCA’s cockpit is entirely too big for it to be a good plane. 😀

I didn’t even realize that the nose diameter was that much bigger than the M2K’s.

It depends upon how well it works if at all.

Well, we’ll just have to wait a few more months now won’t we? 😉

Gripen RADAR : S-Band
MMR : X-Band

S-Band in what mode? Search or track?
X-Band in what mode? Search or track?

A combat aircraft that’s fully in service should have every single line of FCS algorithm verified and validated. Otherwise, the aircraft simply cannot be accepted by the airforce.

Algorithmic cross checking is a reason for having quad digi FCS but in combat aircraft, survivability is more important.

Nearly the same scenario for passenger liners. It’s not algorithms that worry the operator of a large body. It’s the possibility of FCS failure due to a catastrophic event or an incident which puts the FCS in jeopardy.

I can’t recall any aircraft (combat or civilian) that’s already in service that encountered an algorithmic incident with their FCS that resulted in fatality. That doesn’t mean that it hasn’t occured, just means that I couldn’t find it. That says something about its rarety. Again for in service aircraft, survivability is the greatest feature a redundant FCS brings.

I am even willing to wager that if 3 of the 4 digi channels are turned off in an in service combat plane, that one remain digi channel would still be able to achieve 100% of the aircraft’s flight regime. Where as, in a 3D +1A system, if the 3D channels were to be turned off, the aircraft would be considered combat ineffective.

When people make half ignorant comments like “LCA”s nose is too short,” two questions:

Q1) Too short for what?

Q2) What datum are you using to “measure” this too short a distance? The end of the canopy is not a good datum because there is too great a variability in it. One plane’s canopy could be more sloped than another.

Only the people making the “too short” comment know the answer for Q1. So I will refrain from answering that.

Question 2 however can be answered by me.

The datum I have chosen are as follows:
First data, the forward (nose) bulkhead. This is the bulkhead where the fuselage ends and radome begins.

Second data, rear cockpit bulkhead.

The difference in distance from the two datum when the LCA is compared with the Gripen is about 2 ft.

About the width of some rear ends of internet addicted lardasses 🙂 Two feet!

Oh but the LCA’s radar and the LCA must suck because it’s nose is too round!

Again, if my dog had said that… 😀

Triplex Digital with Analog is not more common than quadruplex, which is found in every airliner. It is actually more complex, because of the need to implement decision rules in hard wire rather than software code. That’s like having two FBW designs working in concert, whereas in quadruplex, you have four systems that are mirror copies of each other in hardware.

The ultimate case of going different is to go a totally different direction like an analog system. Using a D/A converter, you can compare the decisioning results of the analog system versus the other three digital systems. The analog system also provides a backup if all three digital systems go down—if something caused three digital systems to go down, it is very likely to cause the fourth digital system to go down as well.

Pretty irrelevant in a fighter that’s been test flown for 2000+ hrs and OPEVALed for more. The reason to build in dundancy in the FCS is for combat survivability NOT algorithm survivability. The codes and algorithms and its associated hardware would have been validated by the testing and OPEVAL.

The redundancy in the FCS is meant give spacial separation to a critical element flight computer. So, if one part of the plane experiences combat or accident damage, there’s still others that can still fly the plane. That’s the reason that all 3 or 4 of the comps don’t sit next to each other. The multiple FCS brains do provide algorithmic redundancy and crosschecking, but that is its seconary task. It’s primary is to give combat survivability.